So here we go again, another negating 10nm desktop posting. The track record is so terrible in this thread, it's safe to assume you are plain wrong.
If there is ADL-S with a completely new socket
you can be sure we will see real desktop CPUs and once again NUC devices are using mobile CPU variants, U or H models and they won't use LGA 1700.
And BDW-C was an exotic mobile-H
I agree. Intel has no where to go after CML, so RKL has to be some variant of a Willow Cove backport, IMO. Intel just needs the right combination of clocks and IPC to get back the ST crown they will almost certainly lose to Zen3. Boosting 1 or 2 cores to 4.7 GHz+ shouldn’t be a problem for Intel unless Intel gets the implementation wrong in some critical path. RKL's success will come down to execution, execution and execution. In Intel’s favor, is an incredibly deep knowledge of their 14 nm process.The rumors did specifically mention 8 cores max for Rocket Lake. That doesn't mean that is Willow Cove since they could just not have an i9 branded product; but does make it more likely.
Also there is no Rocket Lake-H apparently, since 35+ W U parts are replacing them. Again that sort of points to Willow Cove.
I think Intel could get away with Skylake but they would lose DIY for sure.
You had no clue that the smartphone market is 7x bigger than server, you were lying that servers are more lucrative. Annoyed? Instead, you should be ashamed, all other people here are annoyed with your misinformation.OK, better margins.That's what I meant. If Apple has such a large share of such a large market, then why would they bother scaling up and attacking a new market? Isn't that what you're trying to say? Why should x86 be so worried? Perhaps the biggest question though, is why do you turn any thread you can into an ARM/Apple vs x86 thread. It's annoying.
I agree, 4 GHz all core MT load is reasonable due to TDP limitation. However boost clock for ST might be much higher thanks to reliable 14nm+++ process and lower heat density.Stock? Base/boost oscillating around 4 GHz @ 125W TDP for an 8c part. Where exactly the base and boost will be is unknown to me, but my guess is all-core clocks will sit around 4 GHz. And I think you're far too optimistic about how far ahead Willow Cove is/will be versus Zen3/Vermeer. Willow Cove will probably see the biggest lead in integer workloads (ironically). Overall, 3% lead for Rocket Lake-S per clock at best. And I have my doubts about that.
IMHO we can expect ST boost clocks around 4.8 GHz. This will be faster than Zen3 in gaming.
Broadwell-S definitely existed, but was cancelled and replaced with Haswell Refresh.
Wrong, it was Broadwell-R in LGA rather than BGA. Not a mobile part.
This unveils Intel's 4 years deficit in development. Everyone knows this is result of Intel's extra long SkyLake period, almost six years they were sitting still (2015 - 2020). Same deficit have also generic ARM Cortex cores (A77 IPC is inbetween KBL and ICL) however bringing bigger IPC jumps every year than x86. This is future serious thread for Intel, especially when being squeezed also from AMD.
Exactly when did you become a voice here that speaks for all other people?!Annoyed? Instead, you should be ashamed, all other people here are annoyed with your misinformation.
The -R designation is for 65W and up, desktop/NUC BGA with. See Haswell-R and Broadwell-R. The -C designation is for an -R CPU that has been adapted to LGA. See Broadwell-C. Note that the -R and -C CPUs previously had eDRAM caches; in this case, we may see Alder Lake-R for BGA and Alder Lake-S for desktop, if that's the path they choose.
Wrong, it was Broadwell-R in LGA rather than BGA. Not a mobile part.
On-package Cache Memory integrated within the processor based on Mobile H-Processor line with up to GT3 graphics
That +82% IPC advantage of A13 Lightning core is important in context of maximal IPC still available for development of future Intel uarchs (in terms of scalar computation).
Rocket Lake @4.4 GHz is equal to KBL 5.3 GHz (assuming +20% IPC).
Clock frequencies aside (which makes it harder to increase IPC), x86-64 has much wider SIMD vectors than the A series. Pouring a lot of resources and die area into developing AVX/AVX2/AVX-512 has perhaps come at the expense of increased scalar IPC. But is the trade off worth it?
It's not hard to do at all. Look at the datasheet for the chipset. The ballout clearly shows that there are only pins for DMI x4, not DMI x8, therefore DMI x8 isn't possible. You can argue that I can't prove that CMP-H is identical to CNP-H at this juncture, but seeing as there are zero feature changes, identical package dimensions, and the same exact number of balls, it's a pretty safe bet.You have to prove that RKL-S won't get DMI x8 with CMP-H which is hard to do. Until then you are unable to prove your point. In fact he said CML-S with CMP-H gets only DMI x4 which is accurate. It seems you are really desperate trying to find the tiniest spec just to write down sharkbay. Look this is wrong so he is unreliable in all he said. I won't agree with you because all he said so far has been confirmed later on.
Exactly. Like everyone else, this person is fallible—they occasionally make mistakes. I'm not trying to discredit everything sharkbay says, I'm merely pointing out that there appear to be some other things that sharkbay got wrong which at this point have been widely disseminated.As he told he looked in the wrong table and that's why he corrected it later.
Because Intel couldn't guarantee DDR4-2933 until they saw how things binned out, and probably still won't in 2 DPC configurations. But why would you invest in back-porting Willow Cove to 14nm and then saddle it with a 6-year old memory controller design that is being pushed to its limits? Is DDR4-3200 really that hard to achieve on 14nm (honest, not rhetorical question)?Memory speeds could change any time. CML-S was specified for DDR-2666 in all slides and leaks until the very end.
LGA 1200
If Intel is planning ADL just for a few NUCs you can be sure they would use the mobile part ADL-P rather than ADL-S.
It's not. The -R chip is a 65W version of the mobile HQ chip. Both have the same FCBGA1364 pin.
LGA 1200 is (if I recall correctly) a one-off for Comet Lake-S. They probably won't use it for Rocket Lake-S or Alder Lake-whatever.
But why would you invest in back-porting Willow Cove to 14nm and then saddle it with a 6-year old memory controller design that is being pushed to its limits? Is DDR4-3200 really that hard to achieve on 14nm (honest, not rhetorical question)?
It was still a different SKU with a different bin. I don't think Intel designated any 65W parts for mobile (not saying OEMs didn't try it anyway in certain niche products). The Haswell and Broadwell -HQ products topped out at 47W TDP.
LGA1200 is apparently intended for Comet Lake-S/Rocket Lake-S/Tatlow.LGA 1200 is (if I recall correctly) a one-off for Comet Lake-S. They probably won't use it for Rocket Lake-S or Alder Lake-whatever.
Oh, I only brought it up because people are latching on to specific details from leaks to make the argument that Rocket Lake will be one way or the other. If Rocket Lake and Tiger Lake are both Willow Cove, why does Rocket Lake have a memory controller that clocks lower than Ice Lake? Seems odd, no?The question I want to ask you guys is
Why does it matter?
It's a desktop part and people will put DDR4-4000 sticks on them.
LGA1200 is apparently intended for Comet Lake-S/Rocket Lake-S/Tatlow.
Oh, I only brought it up because people are latching on to specific details from leaks to make the argument that Rocket Lake will be one way or the other. If Rocket Lake and Tiger Lake are both Willow Cove, why does Rocket Lake have a memory controller that clocks lower than Ice Lake? Seems odd, no?
Yeah, this is sort of why I posted the table with all the dies in it—to illustrate how every client processor SKU Intel has introduced since Aug 2015 was based on one of at most 20 dies. They're just binned, packaged, and marketed differently. It's a little ridiculous to argue whether something is a "real" desktop or mobile chip when they're the same exact die, but one piece of silicon just happened to land differently on the voltage/frequency scaling curve due to normal manufacturing variances.It's not. The -R chip is a 65W version of the mobile HQ chip. Both have the same FCBGA1364 pin. The -C chip is a LGA version of both.
But that only applies to K SKUs. The other 80% of H/S-Series processors are rated for 2666 because Intel would have to scrap too many dies if they raised it. They have to go with the lowest common denominator.Cheap out of validation and get people to buy Z boards. The current controller works fine at 3200.
But that only applies to K SKUs. The other 80% of H/S-Series processors are rated for 2666 because Intel would have to scrap too many dies if they raised it. They have to go with the lowest common denominator.
So what ? You link to an article, but say nothing about it. Anandtech is the main page for readers here anyway. (well one of)New XPS 13 with Icelake launching on the 7th of January
Dell’s 2020 XPS 13 (9300) Gets Ice Lake & A 13.4-Inch Ultra-HD+ Display
www.anandtech.com
Intel is currently supply bound. If we take a Coffee Lake HP die as an example, based on how Intel bins them, if the memory controller isn't good for DDR4-2666 2DPC all day long it can only be sold as a lower margin i3/Pentium/Celeron part. If it can't hang at DDR4-2400 it goes in the scrap heap. At least 80% of Coffee Lake HP dies will never be used in conjunction with a Z board, in fact, many of them won't even be sold in LGA packages. They'll be locked in at whatever the validated spec is. Intel needs to set the spec as low as possible to salvage every die they can to alleviate supply pressure, but they can't go too low or they end up penalizing the majority of their customers with lower than necessary memory bandwidth. Even though many Coffee Lake CPUs can support higher memory clocks, they're sold as a DDR4-2666 platform because Intel isn't confident they can make enough dies capable of DDR4-2933 to move the whole product stack up a bin.The memory speeds are unlocked if you buy a Z board, and it works just fine on any S processor.
One can't link to a much anticipated ice lake notebook release in the ice lake thread? Your level of anti Intel hate must be bottomless.So what ? You link to an article, but say nothing about it. Anandtech is the main page for readers here anyway. (well one of)
New XPS 13 with Icelake launching on the 7th of January
Dell’s 2020 XPS 13 (9300) Gets Ice Lake & A 13.4-Inch Ultra-HD+ Display
www.anandtech.com
It has nothing to do with Intel, it has everything to do with linking something and not commenting on it.One can't link to a much anticipated ice lake notebook release in the ice lake thread? Your level of anti Intel hate must be bottomless.
He clearlyIt has nothing to do with Intel, it has everything to do with linking something and not commenting on it.